Pham v Doan [2005] NSWSC 201

Pham v Doan [2005] NSWSC 201

A partnership was formed between the plaintiff (a pharmacist) and the defendant (a non-pharmacist) as to the pharmacy businesses, the post office agency, and the North Ryde property. However, by operation of s.25 of the Pharmacy Act 1964 (NSW), that partnership was illegal and void, and the court will not enforce or recognise rights flowing from the partnership.

Parties
Plaintiff: Stephen Pham; Defendant: Peter Doan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Partnership established but found illegal and void; proceedings re-listed for further submissions as to final orders and costs.
Legal Topics
Illegal and Void Contracts, Pharmacy Act 1964, Partnership Formation, Trusts, Statutory Illegality
Equity Contract Partnership Law Illegal and Void Contracts Pharmacy Act 1964 Partnership Formation Trusts Statutory Illegality

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Pham

Plaintiff

Peter Doan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a partnership was formed between a pharmacist and a non-pharmacist for the operation of pharmacy businesses.
  2. 2 Whether such a partnership is illegal and void by reason of s.25 of the Pharmacy Act 1964 (NSW).
  3. 3 What are the consequences of the statutory prohibition for the enforcement of partnership rights and for the ownership of business assets and property.

Ratio Decidendi

A partnership was formed between the plaintiff (a pharmacist) and the defendant (a non-pharmacist) as to the pharmacy businesses, the post office agency, and the North Ryde property. However, by operation of s.25 of the Pharmacy Act 1964 (NSW), that partnership was illegal and void, and the court will not enforce or recognise rights flowing from the partnership.

Court Disposition

Partnership established but found illegal and void; proceedings re-listed for further submissions as to final orders and costs.